Abstract.The purpose of this introductory
essay to these three issues of the
Electronic Journal of Communication
focusing on the Sense-Making
Methodology is to provide: (a) an
overview of the 18 exemplar studies which
constitute these issues;
(b) a brief introduction to the Sense-Making
Methodology; and
(c) a beginning explanation of why authors writing from
such diverse
discourse communities with such diverse implementations
share
a common interest in and use of Sense-Making. The substantive
foci
represented by the exemplars include: public communication
campaign and
audience research; practitioner encoding; audience
decoding; information
seeking in context; health communication;
and religious communication.
Discourse communities include both
qualitative and quantitative studies;
survey research and ethnography;
media uses and effects; cultural studies
reception analysis; and
feminist studies, among others. Disiciplinary
fields represented
include: communication, journalism, environmental
education, sociology,
library and information science, and nursing.
Implementations
include: in-depth interviews, phone surveys, participant
observation,
content analysis, text analysis, statistical analysis, and
thematic
analysis, among others. What all exemplars share in common is
the
use of the Sense-Making Methodology as a source of methodological
guidance
for virtually every aspect of research step-taking --
conceptualizing and
framing questions, observing, interviewing,
listening, and
analyzing.

Introduction

These special issues of the Electronic Journal of
Communication
(Volume 9, Issues 2, 3 & 4) contain 18 research
exemplars
using the Sense-Making Methodology which has been under
development
by Brenda Dervin and colleagues for the past 27 years. Being
exemplars,
each article is an explication of how Sense-Making
Methodology
has been useful for conducting research that addresses
questions
pertinent to a particular discourse community. Thus, we asked
all
authors to review the pertinent aspects of their relevant
literatures and
provide a rationale for a study needed within
that discourse for which they
saw the meta-theory, methodological
tools, and/or methods of Sense-Making
as particularly useful in
some way.

First and foremost, each
study was intended to stand on its own
within its designated discourse
community. In that context, the
authors were asked to proceed with their
research reports as is
usual for their particular community and its
analytic approach.
The difference, however, is that the articles for these
Electronic
Journal of Communication (EJC) issues were intended to serve
both
as interventions in these designated discourse communities and
at the
same time exemplify the uses made of Sense-Making. To this
end, authors
were asked to be explicit about how Sense-Making
informed their work -- as
meta-theory, as methodological guidance,
and/or
method.

We have divided the 18
articles
into five groups in terms of their substantive foci for
purposes
of organizing these issues -- public communication campaign
audience
research; media studies, mass communication, and new
technologies;
health communication and information seeking; information
seeking
and use in context; and religious communication studies.
Within
these substantive foci, the authors use both qualitative
approaches
and quantitative; inductive digs and deductive applications;
phone,
group, and face-to-face interpersonal interviews.

While
all authors collected data in whole or part from interviews,
most used
units of analysis other than the person: as examples,
the question-asking
or sense-making instance, the moment of concern,
a critical incident, the
communicative proceduring or micro-practice.
All intersected on a
conceptualization of the person as moving
across time-space. Some combined
their uses of Sense-Making with
ethnographic field work; others used phone
surveys based on random
samples; still others drew judgmental samples for
in-person interviews.
Some spent as much as a year or more collecting their
data; others
took as little as a week. Some interviewed very small
numbers
of informants, as few as one; others interviewed respondents
numbering
in the hundreds.
Some used formalized interviews; others
embedded their interviews
into naturalized activities. Some enlisted
informants/ respondents
to do their own self-interviewing; others tracked
them down by
arduous travel or phone. Most used interviews which were
entirely
open-ended, but one was almost entirely closed-ended. Some
analyzed
texts, some did thematic and narrative analyses, some
content
analyses, and some statistical analyses. Some used only one
of
Sense-Making's methodological tools -- the
communication-as-procedure
analytic, the Sense-Making triangulation, the
varieties of interviewing
approaches, the verbing category schemes. Some
used almost all
of them. Some used Sense-Making in primarily practical and
applied
ways; others soared to the abstract heights.

Researchers
and/or respondents were from the United States, Canada,
Australia, New
Zealand, The Netherlands, Bolivia and Singapore.
Informants/respondents
included samples of general population
adults, intact student groups,
adolescents, pregnant addicted
mothers, public access TV producers,
practitioners running Bolivian
miner radio stations, newspaper readers,
professionals in their
work environments (nurses, auditors, engineers,
architects, health
practitioners), patients undergoing treatment, and a
young girl
with leukemia.

A Brief Introduction
to the Sense-Making
Methodology

How
could all this diversity be
combined into one set? The answer is that each
turned to the Sense-Making
Methodology in whole or part to execute their
studies. In the
development of Sense-Making, Dervin and colleagues have
explicitly
intended it to be a methodology in the broadest conception
of
that term. To this end, Sense-Making stands between approaches
(usually
the more quantitative) which too often relegate the term
methodology to
method; and approaches (usually the more qualitative)
which too often elide
the term methodology into meta-theory. In
contrast, Sense-Making has been
developed as a methodology between
the cracks (Dervin 1999a). Clearly,
methodology has been traditionally
defined as a branch of philosophy and
Sense-Making has treated
the term as such. However, Sense-Making has
attempted to build
a deliberate methodological bridge to method by
providing meta-theoretic
guidance in such a way that it guides method
without artificially
constraining it.

Thus, Sense-Making consists
of an elaborate set of meta-theoretic
premises about the nature of reality,
human beings, information,
and the phenomena of sense-making, and
communicating. These have
been applied in a set of methodological tools
intended to guide
method, including the methods of framing research questions, observing
and collecting data, and conducting analyses. Sense-Making
has
been developed as a general methodology, one applicable to any
study of
human sense-making and sense-unmaking. Thus, Sense-Making
has been
developed to stand "between the cracks" in
multiple ways --
between, for example, the artificial polarizations
of quantitative versus
qualitative, deductive versus inductive,
prediction versus explanation,
theoretic versus applied, contextual
versus generalizable, random sampling
versus judgmental sampling,
modern versus post-modern, critical versus
administrative, structure
versus agency, stability versus change.

How Sense-Making attempts to build these bridges is the
subject
of a tale longer than can be told here. For the interested
reader,
however, there are 18 answers included in these EJC issues,
each
provided by the authors of the 18 articles. This is
particularly
appropriate because one of Sense-Making's core assumptions
is
that we can reach for phenomena but never touch nor freeze; and,
we can
surround with multiplicity in communion and contest but
never homogenize.
These 18 authors, thus, all clearly have a vision
and mission in common. At
the same time their source discourses
as well as their applications and
implementations are so varied
that for many the only overlap is their
common use of Sense-Making.
But their common use of Sense-Making carries
with it a common
acceptance of how researchers can usefully intersect with
the
researched and usefully conduct research that has both theoretical
as
well as practical implications for communication
practice.

Perhaps the fundamental divide which these articles and
Sense-Making
have attempted to bridge is that of the dominant assumption
in
most social science related studies which holds that
substantive
terrains of focus are of such sufficient difference that
theorizings
must be developed in isolation. We have, thus, a plethora of
communication
theories, and we have as well a plethora of theories about
every
phenomenon which is a focus in these 18 articles. From a
Sense-Making
perspective, this narrow and limiting attention to
substantive
domains has had many deleterious impacts on scholarship.
Examples
of these include: the dominant idea in research practice that
the
various branches of communication studies (e.g. interpersonal,
small group,
organization, media and mass communication, and new
technology studies)
have little to say to each other and at best
only a superficial common
core; and, the development of discourses
so specialized and precious that
they have become unavailable
to enrich each other. More than anything,
however, this attention
to substances over essences has meant that in the
midst of the
expansion to cyberspaced communication, multiple fields both
inside
and outside the social sciences have jumped on the
communication
bandwagon. This is proliferating yet another plethora of
substantive
theories and moving us further away from the once valued
vision
that the study of communication potentially offered something
of
foundational theoretic value.

If we draw a distinction between
different kinds of theorizings,
we can distinguish substantive theorizing
as that kind of theorizing
which aims to describe phenomena. It becomes
distinct, thus, from
the kind of theorizing that aims to guide our
presumings, and
lookings, and collectings, and analyzings. This latter kind
of
theory can be called meta-theorizing but more properly it requires
more
explicit attention to methodology than the term meta-theory
generally
imparts in common academic usage. What we need are approaches
that are at
one and the same time theory for method and method
for theory. Sense-Making
has attempted to be both.

Sense-Making is useful to these diverse
authors, thus, because
it does not operate in the world of nouns and
substances, but
rather in the world of verbs and processes. Further, it
rests
on the foundational premise that acts of communication (internal
and
external; intrapersonal, interpersonal, or collective; direct
or mediated)
all have something in common and can be theorized
as such.

A
listing of the foundational meta-theoretic premises of Sense-Making
is
presented below as a suggestive portrait of what is involved
in the reach
of the authors of these 18 articles. These premises
have been explicated
elsewhere (Dervin, 1999a, b) so they are
being presented here more for
their metaphoric and poetic values
than the precise thrust of their
meanings. Sense-Making as a methodology
mandates attention
to:

* The
human subject, embodied
in materiality and soaring across
time-space.
* The ontological-epistemological divide, the in-between:
the
gap.
* Time-space, movement, gap: fluidities and
rigidities.
* The verbing as primary ontological category.
*
Where the real and the interpretive meet: the verbing between.
* The
role of power: energizing the in-between.
* Horizons, past, present,
and future.
* Ordinary human beings as theorists.
* Talking
the embodied and unconscious into the cognitive and
conscious.
* A
utopian imagination.
* The researcher as the researched: a dialogic
humility.
* Searching for patterns: multiple connectivities.
*
Meta-theory as deconstruction.
* Standards of explanation: the
dialectic dance of content and
commonness.
* A quadruple
hermeneutic.

The authors of the EJC articles,
then, ascribe in whole or part to a
common set of meta-theoretic
premises. All share a wish to bring to bear on
their studies an
approach to thinking about, observing, talking to, and
drawing
conclusions about human beings in a way that frees them as
researchers
as much as possible from the substantively-based noun
theorizings
usually imposed on the researched. In this way, Sense-Making
might
be called a mandate for a new kind of listening. But the
listening
from a Sense-Making perspective would more properly be
called
listenings, thinkings, pointings, observings, concludings,
assumings,
contestings, and reflexings. At root, Sense-Making has been
developed
as a methodology for the practice of communication with
communication
defined as made up of multiple communicatings, as verbings
(Dervin,
1993). One such communication context for Sense-Making is
the
context of researching. Sense-Making, thus, mandates a
methodological
approach to research which is embedded in meta-theory in the
sense
of a praxis -- i.e. research practices which are theoretically
and
critically self-reflexive and repertoirial.

Describing
Sense-Making, its many assumptions and methodological
tools, is beyond the
purpose of this introduction to these three
EJC issues. The presentation
above has been intended to provide
the reader with a brief analogic
portrait of the enterprise which
since the 1970s has involved the energies
of some one hundred
researchers and student collaborators and
respondents/informants
numbering in the thousands. Dervin and colleagues
have purposely
delayed writing extensive overviews of Sense-Making for
almost
20 years because the project demanded multiple voices and
visions
and it required forging in multiple contexts across time.
These
special issues of EJC are a first step to a more comprehensive
and
systematic presentation of the developments. Readers interested
in pursuing
the foundational writings on Sense-Making are invited
to pursue the items
listed in the annotated bibliography which
ends this introduction.
Alternatively, readers are encouraged
to read from among these exemplars,
consciously pushing across
discourses to search for commonalities and
contests because in
the intersection of these multiple views of
Sense-Making there
is much to learn.

The 18 Articles in
the Three EJC
Issues

The 18
articles in these three
issues of EJC issues are divided for presentation
into five groups
based on their emphases of specific substantive discourse
communities.
These groupings have been organized, in opposition to
Sense-Making
premises, along noun dimensions rather than verbing
dimensions.
The reason is, of course, that we want to attract readers
working
in particular discourse communities. In short, while attempting
to
build a path to our conception of what theorizing in communication
might
look like in the future, we must both acknowledge and honor
what is
current. Some of the articles in these issues came directly
out of
discourse communities in which the founding authors of
Sense-Making have
written -- public communication campaign audience
research, for example;
health communication; information seeking
in context. Others involve marked
innovations in application --
reception analysis in cultural studies, for
example; studies in
media education and alternative media; examination of
postings
by users of web-sites; and religious critique and reinvention.
The
groupings of the articles as presented in these three EJC
issues are as
follows:

Public
communication campaign
audience research
Media studies, mass
communication, and new technologies
Information needs, seeking, and
use in context
Health communication and information seeking
Religious communication

Public Communication Campaign
Audience Research

The five articles in this section all
focus on understanding how
a particular target audience makes sense of an
issue high on governmental
and/or other institutional agendas -- adolescent
smoking; household
adherence to environmental protections; citizen
understandings
of wilderness and the needs for protection of wilderness;
public
awareness, opinion, and behavior about HIV/AIDS; and drug use
by
pregnant women. In every one of these cases there is a hope
coming from
some institutional direction that these target audiences
ought to care
about, attend to, or in some way change themselves
vis-a-vis the issue in
question. What the authors of these articles
have in common is an interest
in understanding how the target
audiences make sense outside the external
imposition of institutional
and expert worldviews. Four of the authors --
Frenette, Dervin
et al., Madden, and Brendlinger et al. -- set out
explicitly to
intervene in research on public communication campaigns,
using
Sense-Making meta-theory and method as a tool for interrogation
and
proposing turns to more audience-oriented, qualitative, and
human-centered
approaches to both audience research and campaign
design. The fifth article
by Murphy is grounded in the discourse
community which focuses on meanings
of wilderness and serves,
thus, as an exemplar of how Sense-Making has been
used to serve
practical audience research mandates in the formative stages
of
public communication design.

Kym M. Madden,
Making sense of environmental messages:
An exploration of
households' information needs and uses.

Nancy Brendlinger, Brenda
Dervin, & Lois
Foreman-Wernet
When respondents
are theorists: An exemplar study in the HIV/ADS
context of the use of
Sense-Making as an approach to public communication
campaign audience
research.

Tony P.
Murphy.
The human experience of
wilderness.

Media Studies, Mass Communication,
and New
Technologies

The second
group of articles focuses in different ways on encodings
and decodings of
mediated messages divided neatly for purposes
here into two sets -- studies
focusing on encoding and those focusing
on decoding. From a Sense-Making
perspective, of course, the line
is not so tidily drawn. The six studies in
this group are anchored
in different research genres. Two focus on media
practitioner
encodings. The article by Huesca examines a well-known
alternative
media genre (the radio stations operated by Bolivian tin
miners)
regarding how these broadcasters conceptualized and responded
to
difference in their everyday activities. The second article
by Higgins uses
Sense-Making to examine the realization of the
empowerment vision in the
accounts of their projects by community
volunteer producers at a public
access cable television facility.

The studies focusing on
audience decoding comes from three different
discourse communities. The two
by Shields and by Dworkin et al.
both use Sense-Making to study audience
interpretations of media
products (gendered advertisements for Shields;
television news
for Dworkin et al.) and both position Sense-Making as a
potentially
useful methodological approach for advancing empirical
investigations
of audience decoding. The next study in this set (Spirek et
al.)
compares information needs and seeking successes by audiences
while
reading newspaper leisure time coverage versus while facing
actual leisure
time situations with the intent of making recommendations
for newspaper
practice and design. The final study of the set
by Schaefer focuses on
student sense-making while using electronic
discussion groups and concludes
that Sense-Making's meta-theory
helped him advance theorizing regarding the
role of online discussions
in community building, what he calls
community-ings.

Robert Huesca.
Between
diversity and solidarity: The
challenge of incorporating difference into
media practices for
social change.

John Higgins
Sense-Making and empowerment: A study
of the 'vision' of community
television.

Vickie Rutledge
Shields.
Advertising to the
gendered audience:
Using Sense-Making to illuminate how audiences decode
advertisements
of idealized female bodies.

David Schaefer.
From community to
community-ings: Making
sense of electronic discussion
groups.

Information Needs, Seeking
and Use in Context

The third grouping consists of two articles
pertinent to an emerging
research focus that has captured primary attention
in the field
of library and information science -- information, needs,
seeking,
and use in context. From a Sense-Making perspective, these
labels
-- information needs, information seeking, and information use
--
are not unproblematic and deconstructing them has been a focus
of many of
Dervin's foundational writings. Sense-Making's meta-theoretic
assumptions
about the nature of information and knowing are such
that it would be
possible to construe every study in these three
EJC issues as relating to
information seeking and use. About half
of the studies explicitly name
information seeking and use as
among their communication phenomena of
interest. What makes these
two studies different, however, is that these
authors are explicitly
theorizing information seeking and use, and
implementing Sense-Making
as a methodological tool for doing so. Both in
their different
ways attend to issues of how best to conceptualize what
might
possibly account for and predict information seeking and use.
The
Nilan and Dervin study focuses on structural arrangements
versus
information seeking agency in a quantitative predictive
analysis. The Cheuk
and Dervin study uses Sense-Making as an explicit
approach for defining
information need situations and in a deep
qualitative dig found differences
in information seeking across
ten different situational types with
commonalities within types
across three different professional
groups.

The next grouping consists of three
articles which focus on communication
in health care contexts. One
(Cardillo) is an in-depth case study
of the lived experience of one young
chronically patient -- the
one example in this issue of how Sense-Making
has been used for
long, in-depth interviewing. Cardillo positions
Sense-Making as
a response to challenges posed to qualitative researchers
by postmodern,
postcolonial, and feminist critiques. The second article by
Teekman
uses Sense-Making to examine the nature of reflective thinking
in
nursing practice in the hopes of bridging the gap between the
lack of
clarity in nursing literature regarding the nature of
reflective thinking
versus its positioning as a primary method
for learning from the
complexities of practice. The final study
in the health communication set
by Nelissen et al. focuses on
the quality of information services to cancer
patents in two hospitals,
comparing results of what the authors call supply
side and demand
side analyses of interviews with both health practitioners
and
patients.

Linda Cardillo.
Sense-Making as theory and method for
researching lived
experience: An exemplar in the context of health
communication and
adolescent illness.

The final two articles in these special issues share a focus
on
religious critique and reinvention. The study by Coco describes
how and
why Catholic informants negotiated dissonant situations
with respect to
their Catholic faith and concluded they were re-defining
what it means to
be Catholic. The last study by Clark applied
Sense-Making's
communication-as-procedure analytic in order to
understand the procedurings
of a feminist women's spirituality
group and examine potential gaps between
feminist group process
as ideal and in practice.

Kathleen D. Clark.
A
communication-as-procedure perspective
on a woman's spirituality group: A
Sense-Making and ethnographic
exploration of communicative proceduring in
feminist small group
process.

Conclusion

Each of the 18 articles in these
three issues, then, adds to its own
discourse community in its
own unique way. The articles have been
explicitly chosen for the
breadth and for the variations in how they use
Sense-Making. Each
will no doubt attract readers familiar with each
specialized discourse.
However, by virtue of their common use of
Sense-Making, these
articles will hopefully serve outside their own
communities. Taken
together, they provide illustrative insight into the
value of
being explicitly methodological in approaching studies of
human
sense-making. Together, they illustrate the varieties of ways
in
which a group of interpreters have done so, finding the
Sense-Making
Methodology useful in the
process.

Acknowledgments

Before closing this introduction,
we want to thank the many people
who were instrumental in helping
us complete the task.

*The
theorists to whom Dervin has turned in developing the foundations
of
Sense-Making: Richard F. Carter, in particular, and:
Gregory
Bateson, Paul Bourdieu, Jerome Bruner, Michel Foucault,
Paolo Freire,
Hans-Georg Gadamer, Anthony Giddens, Jurgen Habermas,
and William
McGuire. Carter, Foucault, Giddens, Habermas,
and Freire
need special mention because they served as
well as inspiration for a
substantial number of the authors writing
for these issues.

Finally, of course, we are
most grateful for the authors who submitted
willingly to a more arduous
than usual process, the unnamed several
thousand students who have tested,
applied, and been subjected
to Sense-Making developments, and the
informants/ respondents
who have participated in these
studies.

Annotated
Bibliography

The
bibliography below includes
a core set of articles and chapters which mark
in different ways
the development of Sense-Making. There are hundreds of
other authors
who have used Sense-Making in a variety of ways and
contributed
to its developments in both small and large ways, sometimes
by
contest, sometimes by communication, most often by extension and
new
implementation. For comprehensive guidance, see the Sense-Making
web site,
listed first on the bibliography. The items listed below
are listed in
reverse chronological order.

The site includes: (a) a complete
list of Dervin's writings relating to Sense-Making; (b) a list
of those
who have cited Dervin's writings; (c) abstracts of dissertations
which
have used Sense-Making; (d) examples of Sense-Making instruments
and
transcriptions of interviews; (e) examples of the uses of
Sense-Making in
pedagogical and other communication practice
settings.

Dervin,
B. (1999a). Sense-Making's
journey from meta-theory to methodology to
method: An example
using information seeking and use as research focus.
Paper
presented at the International Communication Association
annual
meeting, San Francisco, May. [available from
author]

This
paper provides the most
recent presentation of Sense-Making's
meta-theoretic premises
and a detailed explication of how these relate to
method, exemplified
for the study of information seeking in context. This
paper includes
a discussion on the distinctions between meta-theory,
substantive
theory, methodology, and method that is not available
elsewhere.

This chapter extracts the implications
of
Sense-Making's meta-theory for the confluence of interests
emerging as a
field with a new name but an old mission -- information
design. The idea
of Sense-Making as a theory of practice is
developed
here.

This article provides an exemplar
of the use of
Sense-Making in survey research with data analyzed
using sophisticated
statistical approaches but attempting to
do so in policy-articulate ways.
The article intends to intervene
in discourses relating to the
conceptualizations of users in
telecommunications policy arenas. Shields
& Dervin (1998)
listed below is another article from the same
project.

An
application of Sense-Making
as a theory for method in the emerging
interest arena of knowledge
management, a focus primarily in
interdisciplinary business-oriented
journals. The concern in the field is
for "harvesting"
and "managing" the knowledge held by
employees, knowledge
not now codified in formal ways. The article
contests dominant
conceptions of knowledge management based on both
assumptions
from Sense-Making's meta-theory and consistent results from
Sense-Making
studies regarding the ways people make and use
information.

Dervin and Huesca apply the
communication-as-procedure
analytic to a review of the literature on
participatory communication
practices as alternative forms of creating
and maintaining community.
Huesca & Dervin (1994) is another article
from the same project.

Another article from the line
of work applying Sense-Making's
communication-as-procedure analytic
as a tool for examining communication
practices, in this case,
alternative communication forms as proposed and
practiced in
Latin America.

One of two summary presentations
of Sense-Making
research and applications to date, this one written
primarily for the
discourse communities serving library and information
science. The other
is listed below as Dervin, 1989.

The third of the set of three
articles
which develop Sense-Making's emphasis on "verbing".
This
article (like Dervin, 1993) attempts to speak to the communication
field
as a potentially coherent field.

One of
two articles (the other
is Dervin, 1980) which deconstruct how research
categories and
approaches create categories of users (including the
category
of knowledge gap) and then impose these on the
researched.

An
application of Sense-Making's
approach to the interview to library
practice at the reference
desk. The term "neutral questioning"
was invented by
a library practitioner. The term has now been changed in
Dervin's
writing to "Sense-Making questioning" because she
would
argue that neutrality is neither achievable nor desirable. What
is useful are procedures for dialogue and Sense-Making questioning
is
presented as one such proceduring.

This is a
much-cited review of
the studies of information needs, seeking, and use
written for
the fields of information and library science. The
Sense-Making
approach and other user-oriented approaches to user studies
are
contrasted with user studies based primarily on transmission
ideas
of communication.

Written in 1983
when Dervin was
beginning to coalesce the components of 11 years of work
into
an approach with the name Sense-Making. At this point, Dervin
still referred to the approach as constructivist while now she
refers to
it as a verbing, or proceduring approach. This 1983
article incorporated
a listing of a series of studies done in
the late 1970s and early 1980s
applying Sense-Making to the study
of information needs, seeking, and
use. It was in this context,
with funding from the then U.S. Office of
Libraries and Learning
Resources and the California State Library, that
Dervin began
the Sense-Making journey. The fact that she was located in
Seattle,
Washington in the same unit as Richard F. Carter was a vital
contiguity because his influence, more than any other, impacted
the work
and in important fundamental ways made it
possible.

An early deconstruction of the terms "information"
and "knowledge gap" and how conceptualizations and uses of these terms artificially
construct the researched (e.g users, audiences) as in gap without actually
hearing how those being research see the gaps and struggles in their own lived
experiences..

Copyright 1999 Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, Inc.

This file may not be publicly distributed or reproduced without written permission of
the Communication Institute for Online Scholarship, P.O. Box 57, Rotterdam Jct., NY 12150
USA (phone: 518-887-2443).